The data used are coming from ARAS database, as indicated in a footnote on page 1. This very footnote leads to the database. On that page one also can find the conditions for use of data in publications.

- The observers concerned should be acknowledged.
- Observers contributing a significant amount of data or whose data are pivotal to the findings of the paper should be included as co-authors.

Obviously the authors of the above paper did not take these conditions into consideration. This already happened for another Nova Del publication about two years ago. As a result, all amateur efforts are potentially not correctly taken into consideration again. As some of you might know, I am somewhat skeptical about such public databases because professionals might not take necessary care when dealing with such data. I do not need additional co-authorships because my publication list is doing well, anyway. But as the person in charge of the Teide campaign and responsible for the participants benefit it is painful and inacceptable that people ignore guidelines and do not mention the high motivation and large (financial) investments of scholars and amateurs in their papers, especially if such people use these papers for their own career.

The Southern Astro Spectroscopy Email Ring (SASER) recently decided not to give their data to everybody but only to exclusive scientists who agree with the SASER guidelines. I fully support this policy. This is (again) confirmed by the present experience. If data guidelines are important to single observers, I unfortunately can not recommend to upload spectra to ARAS.

I would appreciate if some of the professionals in this forum give their opinion.

I do not see any of your spectra there so why are you so concerned ? How do
you know the conditions were not met? Have you asked the observer Keith
Graham who's two spectra (out of 13) were used if he is happy for you to be
so indignant on this forum on his behalf?

Perhaps instead of attacking others efforts to promote the work of amateur
spectroscopists, you should be congratulating Keith and amateurs in general
on yet again making a small contribution to increased knowledge in this
area.

We already know your views on open databases, Thomas but you are not a
spokesman for the amateur community. (The views of other professionals,
while of interest, is not particularly relevant here either since they have
different priorities to the typical amateur)

Personally I also find it sad that SASER has gone dark. Amateur spectrosopy
has only advanced to the stage we are at now through being open and sharing
data and experience.

You might be interested to know that the BAA now also has a spectroscopic
database to complement its database of over 100 years of variable star data.
It has similar conditions to the ARAS database which are already tighter
than most professional public databases.

The data used are coming from ARAS database, as indicated in a footnote
on page 1. This very footnote leads to the database. On that page one
also can find the conditions for use of data in publications.

*/- The observers concerned should be acknowledged.
- Observers contributing a significant amount of data or whose data are
pivotal to the findings of the paper should be included as
co-authors./*

Obviously the authors of the above paper did not take these conditions
into consideration. This already happened for another Nova Del
publication about two years ago. As a result, all amateur efforts are
potentially not correctly taken into consideration again. As some of
you might know, I am somewhat skeptical about such public databases
because professionals might not take necessary care when dealing with
such data. I do not need additional co-authorships because my
publication list is doing well, anyway. But as the person in charge of
the Teide campaign and responsible for the participants benefit it is
painful and inacceptable that people ignore guidelines and do not
mention the high motivation and large (financial) investments of
scholars and amateurs in their papers, especially if such people use
these papers for their own career.

The Southern Astro Spectroscopy Email Ring (SASER) recently decided not
to give their data to everybody but only to exclusive scientists who
agree with the SASER guidelines. I fully support this policy. This is
(again) confirmed by the present experience. If data guidelines are
important to single observers, I unfortunately can not recommend to
upload spectra to ARAS.

I would appreciate if some of the professionals in this forum give
their opinion.

Let me react to your message, although I agree with Robin that as a
professional astronomer my viewpoint might not be the most relevant
here. I think the situation here is very similar to what happens in the
professional world. Any professional observatory has archives where the
data become publicly available after some proprietary time (usually one
year). Anyone from the outside world can download the data then and
publish them without even mentioning the name of the original
proposer/observer. The latter also holds if the original observer for
some good or bad reason did not yet have the opportunity to publish
his/her results. Another similar situation happens with the users of
databases such as SIMBAD, CDS,... The users are supposed to add an
acknowledgment to their publication. Some do, others forget (happens
also to me, mea culpa), others never acknowledge anything. There is of
course no way to force people to do so, but the very reason behind this
demand (in case of CDS/SIMBAD) is that it allows the CDS to maintain a
reasonable level of funding to continue doing what they are doing for
the benefit of all astronomers.
So my bottom line is that I agree with the fact that once the data are
on a public database you basically accept the idea that anyone can use
them without necessarily following the rules that have been formulated.
However, this being said, if we want to still benefit from these
services in the future, I think it's in the interest of the users (in
this case the professional astronomers) to make sure that those who
provide these services (be it amateur astronomers, CDS or others) get
the visibility they deserve and keep their motivation.
I cannot say what happened in the present case, but my feeling is that
these people used ARAS just in the same way as they would do with the
ESO, ESA or any other database from professional facilities.

The data used are coming from ARAS database, as indicated in a footnote
on page 1. This very footnote leads to the database. On that page one
also can find the conditions for use of data in publications.

*/- The observers concerned should be acknowledged.
- Observers contributing a significant amount of data or whose data are
pivotal to the findings of the paper should be included as
co-authors./*

Obviously the authors of the above paper did not take these conditions
into consideration. This already happened for another Nova Del
publication about two years ago. As a result, all amateur efforts are
potentially not correctly taken into consideration again. As some of
you might know, I am somewhat skeptical about such public databases
because professionals might not take necessary care when dealing with
such data. I do not need additional co-authorships because my
publication list is doing well, anyway. But as the person in charge of
the Teide campaign and responsible for the participants benefit it is
painful and inacceptable that people ignore guidelines and do not
mention the high motivation and large (financial) investments of
scholars and amateurs in their papers, especially if such people use
these papers for their own career.

The Southern Astro Spectroscopy Email Ring (SASER) recently decided not
to give their data to everybody but only to exclusive scientists who
agree with the SASER guidelines. I fully support this policy. This is
(again) confirmed by the present experience. If data guidelines are
important to single observers, I unfortunately can not recommend to
upload spectra to ARAS.

I would appreciate if some of the professionals in this forum give
their opinion.

I do not see any of your spectra there so why are you so concerned? How do you know the conditions were not met?

As you can read (did you?) Keith is neither in the authors list nor in the acknowledgements. The ARAS rules have not been obeyed.

Zitat:

Have you asked the observer Keith Graham who's two spectra (out of 13) were used if he is happy for you to be so indignant on this forum on his behalf?

I do not speak on his behalf but only for myself. I give information to those who are not aware what might happen with their data. I believe that I am allowed to do that in this forum, right!

Zitat:

Perhaps instead of attacking others efforts to promote the work of amateur spectroscopists, you should be congratulating Keith and amateurs in general on yet again making a small contribution to increased knowledge in this area.

Where I congratulate and how is my own turn. But don’t worry, I do it regularly as you experienced by yourself. If you consider my opinion as an attack you should carefully read my comment again.

Zitat:

We already know your views on open databases, Thomas but you are not a spokesman for the amateur community.

Where did I claim to be a spokesman for the communty, Robin? I suggest you calm down, you do not attack me and accept that we both have different views on the issue. That should actually be no problem.

Zitat:

(The views of other professionals, while of interest, is not particularly relevant here either since they have different priorities to the typical amateur)

I consider their input as highly relevant because they are obviously involved. And, sorry, it is only my turn to decide who I ask. Unless you are our spokesman.

Zitat:

Personally I also find it sad that SASER has gone dark.

I agree! But I can understand their reasons.

Zitat:

Amateur spectrosopy has only advanced to the stage we are at now through being open and sharing data and experience.

That might be, but considering the outstanding SASER success (the best team from my point of view) this is perhaps not always valid.

Hi Gregor, thank you for your input. At least I disagree with Robin and appreciate it!

It is important that you give some details about the usual user behaviour. All data contributors can then make up their mind. That is what I wanted to point out in my message.

I see a difference between pro and am databases. Professional data become public domain after about a year to guarantee that acquired data are published and expensive telescope time is not wasted. The situation is somewhat different in the amateur domain. Observers contribute data and hope for being acknowledged (yes, Robin, some do not bother). I think professionals should be more sensitive here. Acknowledgements are important!

I don't intend to get involved in this argument/discussion other than to
correct what has been said about the SASER database. In an effort to make
data available to all and at the same time have some control over its
dissemination anyone can view the spectra jpg images but only members can
download the FIT files. Non-members, pro or amateur, can request access to
specific FIT files and this will normally be agreed to with the clear
understanding that acknowledgment is given in any publication using the
spectra. This has been the policy from the start and there have not been any
recent changes to it. I don't believe SASER has 'gone dark', on the contrary
I think we have adopted a policy that best assures our data is both visible
and available to all ... as long as it is acknowledged.

As you can read (did you?) Keith is neither in the authors list nor in the acknowledgements. The ARAS rules have not been obeyed.

Hi Thomas,

I think perhaps it is you who needs to learn to read

"ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to all of the variable star observers
who contributed to the creation of the worldwide
AAVSO database and to K. Graham, an observer of
the ARAS database, for the use of his observations in
our paper."

What??! Err! You are right indeed... I missed that. Dementia, I suppose. So, for this case my statement is not correct. I apologize! My opinion about un-managed databases remains the same, though, because of my experience with the Teide Nova Del data.

Again, my intention is not to attack somebody but to keep an eye on the mentioned problem.

I don't believe SASER has 'gone dark', on the contrary
I think we have adopted a policy that best assures our data is both visible
and available to all ... as long as it is acknowledged.

My Apologies,

My comments are rather out of date. I lost touch with SASER soon after it was set up when the mailing list which was originally open to read, became closed to non members and being in the north I did not really qualify. Having now tracked down the website, I can see how the access to campaign data works.
The database content is perhaps a little different to the ARAS and BAA databases in that it is time specific campaign based so can be controlled by the campaign PI. At the end of the day though, the conditions of use are very similar for all these databases (And indeed are very similar what I originally formulated when I started collating data from different observers for the Eps Aur eclipse back in 2008.) What varies is how the conditions are enforced. The problem is with the more general databases like ARAS and BAA which are not campaign specific. Who is who is going to spend the time to police access? We are currently wrestling with this issue with the BAA database. The BAA database is seen,(perhaps uniquely in amateur spectroscopy currently) as a secure long term repository for all data. It is hoped that perhaps after the papers have been written, observers who contributed to specific campaigns eg through SASER, ConVento, ARAS, AAVSO etc might consider mirroring their spectra on the BAA database, making them available to future generations.